Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 14 January 2024 01:30 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:30:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyTOgonz78Pdbi5e+RAv1=YdA14mchMi6UPRxdAmhK2+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: acme@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aaee34060eddd6ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/0dKNx17ZgTFr1h9BnMcwnr7WPG0>
Subject: Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt
Precedence: list

Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the beginning of a two week WGLC for this draft, which will end on
> 26 Jan.
>
> Please review and comment.

I read it, and would not object to it being published as independent
submission. But, I never object to publishing anything.

I do not think it represents IETF consensus, even as an experimental work.
It can't.

That's because it makes some claims that can't be supported in a network
protocol. This is just one:

"An integrity gateway SHALL validate the Source Node ID of a bundle, using
local-network-specific means, before adding a BIB to the bundle. The exact
means by which an integrity gateway validates a bundle's source is
network-specific, but could use physical-layer, network-layer or
BP-convergence-layer authentication. The bundle source could also add its
own BIB with a local-network-specific security context or
local-network-specific key material (i.e. a group key shared within the
local network)."

thanks,
Rob

[Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.t… internet-drafts
Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-… Deb Cooley
Re: [Acme] [EXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnn… Sipos, Brian J.
Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-… Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-… Rob Sayre
Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-… Deb Cooley
Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-… Deb Cooley